Presidential Eligibility – Is It “A Matter of Faith” ?…

Here’s an odd riddle, I couldn’t answer – perhaps you can.  Some might find worthy of discussion.

What exactly was the purpose behind all of those inquiries into President Obama’s Birth Certificate?  Was it, as many have presented and thousands have bantered back and forth, to finally find out if President Obama was born in Kenya instead of Hawaii.

NordykeBirthCertificateBarack Obama Senior and Stanley Ann Dunham

Was that the goal?

If that was the goal, and if it was discovered that President Obama was born in Kenya to a Kenyan father and American mother (Ann Dunham), as best we can determine from the thousands of opinions on the matter, and according to those most heavily invested in this expedition, President Obama would have been ineligible for Presidential office.

So, according to those who understand these issues, if the birth certificate showed Obama born outside of the U.S. he would have been ineligible.

Just so we’re clear before proceeding:

If Candidate Obama birthplace was outside U.S. = ineligible.

Well, if that is accurate, then how is Ted Cruz eligible?

Senator Ted Cruz was born in Canada, to a Cuban father (Cuban national at time of birth – U.S. citizenship much later) and an American mother.  Isn’t this the exact same set of circumstances as President Obama only without the birth certificate argument?

obama-white-house-press-conferenceted cruz 1

Assume for a moment that President Obama was born in Kenya (most people say that would have made him ineligible).

♦ Obama born in Kenya.  Cruz born in Canada.

♦ Obama born to African national father.  Cruz born to Cuban national father.

♦ Obama born to American mother.  Cruz born to American mother.

Same set of circumstances, just different countries.

Yet Candidate Barack Obama is ineligible and Candidate Ted Cruz is eligible?

How does that work?

Help me understand.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Dear Leader - Creepy POTUS Worship, Obama Research/Discovery, Ted Cruz. Bookmark the permalink.

488 Responses to Presidential Eligibility – Is It “A Matter of Faith” ?…

  1. keebler AC says:

    I lost my comment so I’ll just add here, due to the recent threat of globalization and NWO, it is eversomore important than ever to vet a candidate’s loyalty.

    “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

    According to Case Law, Minors & Happersett, Ted was not born in a country (America) of parents who were its citizens themselves (mother). By same token, neither is Obama because he could not prove he was born here with a valid non-forged birth certificate and his mother was too young to be considered of maturity to pass on proper American loyalty (although he could have been granted exception but still no valid proof of location of birth in the US). Nor is Rubio – born here to non-citizen parents at the time. Problem is Obama has been allowed..

    Liked by 5 people

    • keebler AC says:

      What I’m saying is that if Ted was born in Canada (or Sweden or Russia or Ivory Coast) to Cuban father and American mother, case law interprets the Constitution to say that he is not natural born – only a citizen. His parents loyalty were such that they chose to live in a foreign country, to gather their livelihood under a different type of government on a supposedly permanent basis. They were looking to emigrate but failed because their business start up in the new country failed. Returning to America was their second choice. Parentage and loyalty does impact on the child’s identity.

      Stanley Ann also took her child away as the single parent and she never lived together with Obama Sr. as husband and wife.

      Empirically, if one can call it that, I see now that mixed childhood lends confusion to one’s identity.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Lou says:

      Ted was not born in the US so he’s not a naturally born citizen. I used to think he was awesome when he spoke up to Trayvon’s mom, and then he tried too hard to be one of the cool kids by eating bacon from the muzzle of an assault rifle.
      being a Conservative always had to being a sovereign state. the NWO or globalism or free trade is all the same thing. the focus has shifted to loving Ronald Reagan and claiming global warming is a hoax. that’s not what Conservatism is. limited government means free trade. that’s why I hate Reagan with a passion. Milton Friedman and himself singlehandedly ruined this country with his policies of caring only about Wall Street while allowing corps to outsource to cheaper labor. that’s what Reagan called limited government. Reagan was the beginning of the end of small businesses being able to prosper. Obama is worse because he’s making these employers pay for health insurance. the BIGGEST problem is globalization. once you set Protectionist policies in place again (PROTECTIONISM was the law of the land for 200 years until Reagan.) we will be fine. youtube economists will tell you different, but that’s why they aren’t real economists without an agenda. sorry for the lengthy post.

      Like

      • Mike says:

        Reagan talked free trade but was a protectionist. How do you think he won all those union votes? He claimed to be fair trade but Harley admitted years later all there problems were management and not the Japanese who at the time were making motorcycles nothing like HD. Car companies were the same story and people forget Japanese cars were more expensive and not nearly as big a percentage of the market back in the 80s. Yet somehow this caused the big four problems cause they can’t lose any sales and be successful. Anyway, Reagan was always there for these companies. Same with American TV makers whose problem was they weren’t as good as a Sony that cost more.
        http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa107.html

        Like

    • Cal Johnson says:

      I think Ted has a different set of issues surrounding the circumstances of his birth (which I’ll address in a moment). The issue for Obama is not so much that he was born in a different country. The issue is, if he WAS born in a different country is is ineligible to inherit U.S. citizenship because his mother had not met the criteria of the citizenship clause which states that the mother must have reached her 14th year PLUS lived in the U.S. an additional five year part her 14th birthday (in other words, she must be 19 years of age) to be in a position to transfer U.S. citizenship to her child”

      “Section 301 as Effective on December 24, 1952: When enacted in 1952, section 301 required a U.S. citizen married to an alien to have been physically present in the United States for ten years, including five after reaching the age of fourteen, to transmit citizenship to foreign born children. The ten year transmission requirement remained in effect from 12:01 a.m. EDT December 24, 1952, through midnight November 13, 1986, and still is applicable to persons born during that period. http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf

      The only exceptions are unwed mothers residing in U.S. consulates, territories or outlying possessions. Obama’s mother was 18 when she gave birth to her son (the statute requires her to be at least 19) and did not reside in any U.S. owned possessions when she was oversees.

      Ted’s case is different in that his mother was (presumably) past the age of 19 when he was born (she gave birth to another son in 1960, who died at the age of 5). But the issue with Ted is this: We know his father because a Canadian citizen shortly after moving to Canada (at least a year prior to Ted’s birth). When he became a U.S. citizen in 2005 he had to renounce his Canadian citizenship to do so. We know that Ted’s mother accompanied her husband to Canada to set up an oilfield-services company and work there.

      The question becomes, Did Ted’s mother pursue Canadian citizenship along with his father? It would make perfect sense if she did (in fact, why wouldn’t she since her husband was pursuing it?). If she became a Canadian citizen, then her U.S. citizenship is automatically revoked. Since that would have happened a full year before Ted was born, it follows that there may have been no U.S. Citizenship for Ted to inherit.

      Liked by 4 people

      • ctdar says:

        Ahh I’m sorry I didn’t see your post before I posted mine up above.

        Like

      • Toronto Tonto says:

        Cruz’ father said in an NPR interview they both became Canadian citizens four years before Cruz was born. Did she renounce her American citizenship? It doesn’t matter. SCOTUS has ruled on numerous occasions that foreign-born children of American citizens are naturalized by an act of Congress, not natural born as the constitution requires.

        Liked by 1 person

      • R Daneel says:

        Also, it has to do with when they were born. The law changed in ’64. Obama born in ’61. Cruz in ’70.

        For the same reason I am not eligible to be POTUS, Obama is not.

        (Long story)

        Liked by 2 people

      • singtune says:

        From the information I have garnered the Father of Ted Cruz was a Natural Born Citizen of Cuba at the time Ted Cruz was born in 1970. When Ted was born he was a Ntive Born Canadian Citizen and his family received a Canadian Birth Certificate for him. His mother never even registered him to be a Dual Citizen of Canada & the US. His family moved to the US when he was 4 years old & his parents became Naturalized Citizens here. so I can see NO WAY Ted Cruz can be a Natural Born Citizen of the United States of America.

        Liked by 2 people

      • LFK says:

        Do not believe that her U.S. citizenship would have been revoked. Personally know people who hold dual U.S. and Canadian citizenship, and have since moving to Canada in the ’90’s.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Ok, I too did not see your post before I posted above………..I stand corrected on the time frame and age for the US citizen………….

        Like

    • smrstrauss says:

      Re: “According to Case Law, Minors & Happersett, Ted was not born in a country (America) of parents who were its citizens themselves (mother). By same token, neither is Obama because he could not prove he was born here with a valid non-forged birth certificate and his mother was too young to be considered of maturity to pass on proper American loyalty (although he could have been granted exception but still no valid proof of location of birth in the US).”

      Answer: Minor v. Happersett does not say what you think. It NEVER says that two citizen parents (or even one) is required in order to be a NBC. And the Wong Kim Ark ruling, which was after Minor v. Happersett, said that every child born on US soil is a NBC except for the children of foreign diplomats and members of an invading army.

      Obama’s birth certificate is not forged. Birthers just keep claiming that it is, for their own obvious motives (now I wonder what those motives could be? Answer: Answer, they are the same motives that led birther sites to post three forged Kenyan birth certificates and to claim that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya—-when she actually said that he was born in HAWAII in three interviews, of which birther sites showed their readers only part of one of them, carefully cutting off the tape recordings on their sites just before she was asked where he was born and replied: “In Hawaii, where his father was studying at the time”—now, why do you suppose birther sites would not show their readers that?

      So Obama’;s birth certificate is not forged, and he really was born IN HAWAII, which is US soil, and every child born on US soil is a Natural Born US citizen except for the children of foreign diplomats and members of an invading enemy army. And Obama’s father was not a foreign diplomat or a member of an invading enemy army—which is why, duh, the chief justice of the USA swore in Obama repeatedly after each election, and it is why John McCain and Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan and Karl Rove and the Republican Party did not object to his being sworn in.

      Like

  2. Barack Obama is the son of Frank Marshall Davis. The African guy was blamed for the pregnancy.

    Liked by 3 people

  3. Centinel2012 says:

    Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:

    My understanding is in the case of Obama and Cruz they must swear an oath to the US Constitution after turning 18 and then they are ineligibleto be president. I think what they were trying to do is claim he never did swear allegiance and that made him ineligible.

    Like

  4. Qbinky says:

    This is one explanation I had heard as the reason he was ineligible. The Snopes website summed it up as such: “Barack Obama does not qualify as a natural-born citizen of the U.S. because the law in effect at the time he was born specified that “If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16.” Since Barack Obama only had one U.S. citizen parent (his mother), and his mother had not been residing in the U.S. for at least five years after the age of 16 when Barack was born (because she herself was only 18 at the time), then he’s not a natural-born citizen.” Of course, this was the part Snopes was ridiculing as being “far-fetched. “. Does this scenario have any bearing on your comparison?

    Like

  5. Will says:

    I’ve often wondered if Ted’s run has been to force a referendum on the whole issue, just for fun of course. I hope it creates a firestorm of controversy, as those who were the most outspoken and ardent supporters of the 44th, now must scream in outraged protest at the audacity of his candidacy. And Ted is just the kind of SOB to get into a debate on the matter.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Sentient says:

      It wouldn’t make “Ted” right, no matter how fancy-pants his arguments might be. Hey look, not everyone meets the qualifications for being president. Arnold Schwarzenegger can’t be president. Being senator – and husband of a Goldman Sachs exec – out to be enough for ol’ “Ted”.

      Liked by 4 people

  6. Veritas says:

    My understanding has to do wih the age of his mother, 18 at the time of his birth, and his and her subsequent residence outside of the US which made birth in the USA a requirement to transmit citizenship. Cruz grew up in the USA, Obama did not.

    As far as I am concerned we should adopt the Mexican requirement where both parents are USCs. Just saying.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Sentient says:

      I think the framers thought they HAD adopted that standard.

      Liked by 5 people

      • Burnt Toast says:

        Bingo…

        19th Amendment buttressed by Cable Act of 1922 provided for maintaining (primarily) the wife’s citizenship separate from the husband’s. FWIW, wiki has pages on the Cable Act that has links to preceding laws that can be walked back through for background.

        Like

    • sDee says:

      NBC as well defined at the time the Constitution was written, means both parents must be citizens (naturalized or natural) and born on US soil

      The Constitution did not require NBC for Congress – a naturalized citizen met this as would a citizen born to only one citizen parent.

      Liked by 3 people

      • singtune says:

        True-US Soil ~~~or the Parents can be US Citizens working for the US Government, at the time of Birth in a Foreign Country! That is the only exclusion I know of, at this time.

        Liked by 1 person

        • There is no exclusion for children of any gov’t official. All children born abroad are treated the same regardless of parents citizenship or job situation. All born abroad are naturalized citizens in terms of the Constitution. SCOTUS in Rogers v Bellei 1971.

          Like

  7. furtiveadmirer says:

    From: Robert Laity
    Sent: Friday, November 27, 2015 3:04 PM
    To: Donald McGahn, Esq ; Donald Trump
    Subject: The ineligibility of Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio for the Presidency

    Donald McGahn,Esq.
    Counsel to Donald Trump

    Dear Mr. McGahn,

    Mr. Trump, as a candidate for President has standing to dispute the bona-fides of other candidates. I filed a challenge with the NH Ballot Law Commission against Rubio,Jindal and Cruz who are not “Natural Born Citizens”. Please read my submissions on that subject. The ineligible candidates should be excluded from the campaign and from continuing their unlawful attempts to usurp the Presidency.

    I have filed challenges against Barack Obama in the past. See: Laity v NY, US Supreme Court, Cert. Denied.

    There is no “President” Obama: http://www.thepostemail.com/09/17/2010/there-is-no-president-obama/

    Robert C. Laity
    Founder and President, Society for the
    Preservation of our American Republic
    Petitioner
    Laity v Cruz,Rubio,Jindal –NH BLC #2015-4

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2015/11/27/new-hampshire-ballot-challenger-writes-to-donald-trumps-attorney-on-presidential-eligibility/

    Liked by 2 people

    • Sentient says:

      Maybe Corey Lewandowski should tweet out an acknowledgment of having received the open letter from Robert Laity. Keep Donald’s fingerprints off of the issue, but let the media know that Trump’s people are aware of it.

      Liked by 1 person

      • furtiveadmirer says:

        Not an open letter. It was sent to his attorney, McGann. Trump knows Cruz is ineligible from many. He already stated publicly that Cruz has “hurdles”.

        He will use his “Trump card” if Cruz gains traction in Iowa, but that is dishonest, because Cruz & Rubio know they are BOTH ineligible & TRUMP, AS AN HONEST DEALER, & PATRIOT, should educate the ignorant ASAP.

        Liked by 2 people

  8. Blase Blase says:

    Its actually simple. You all are making a common error. BOTH parents MUST BE U.S. CITIZENS in order for a person to qualify to be President. How do you think McCain qualified when he was born in Panama? (as a side note, Obama requested that McCain’s citizenship status was investigated by Congress to see if he qualified. However, strangely enough, Obama’s citizenship status was never investigated by Congress.) No matter where Obama was born, his father WAS NOT/NEVER BECAME a U.S. citizen.

    Liked by 7 people

    • Martin says:

      This.

      Liked by 1 person

    • sDee says:

      McCain was ineligible because he was not born on US soil. Congress has no power to interpret the Constitution yet Nancy Pelosi passed an unconstitutional House Resolution declaring McCain ineligible.

      Why would Pelosi do this when they could have easily knocked McCain our? Well once the Rebublican’s accepted the lawless resolution for McCain – how could they themselves expose Obama’s ineligibility?

      Win-win for the globalists.

      Liked by 1 person

    • furtiveadmirer says:

      But that “father” might be a stand in for an all American like…Malcolm X!

      His past is one big fantasy.

      ( his daughters look like Malcolm’s daughter…clones!)

      Then he is merely an identity thief with multiple ss#s & a counterfeit selective service card ( “1980” date on a 2008 form)

      Either way, he’s a criminal.

      Liked by 3 people

    • R Daneel says:

      No. If and only if the person is born out of the country does that apply. For pre-’64 births. The definition of NBC changed then. Cruz meets the newer standard.

      Like

    • Frank O'Pinion says:

      McCain required documentation to prove his citizenship.
      No legitimate candidates (R) & (D) for POTUS were fielded in 2008.
      Anyone who requires documentation is a naturalized citizen according to Congressional laws authorized by the U.S. Constitution.
      Real natural born U.S. citizens do not require documentation to prove their citizenship.
      Their birth certificate will attest to their NBC status provided it can be proved that both parents are U.S. citizens.
      Real natural born U.S. citizens are born on U.S. soil to citizen parent(S).

      Liked by 1 person

  9. Darrell W says:

    Thanks for the topic Sundance. We do not know when Resident Obama was born, where he was born, or who his birth parents are. Therefore we do not know if he is a legal president or not. That is why I call him Resident Obama. Rubio, Jindal, and Cruz did not have two American citizen parents at the time or their birth which makes them ineligible. One also has to be born on American soil so that is another strike against Cruz.

    Liked by 4 people

  10. Hope's Human says:

    The following is based on reading other stories like this so take it with a grain of salt. My understanding is that there are two items that make a significant difference. First, Cruz’s father had a green card (naturalized). second. Second, Cruz’s mother was over the age of 21. Both of these requirements must be met for a foreign-born person to be automatically granted US citizenship. Cruz’s parents were in Canada on a business trip when he was born so they were also business owners and taxpayers.

    I grew up in Miami in the 1970s and 1980s. Needless to say I knew a lot of Cubans. The citizenship process for them was expeditious to say the least. Even in the late 1950s it was pretty easy. That was when this country actually stood up to communist dictators. Even then green cards were easy to come by for Cubans. Later we adopted what’s known as “wet foot / dry foot.” That means if a Cuban coming over on a boat makes it to shore, i.e. dry foot, he is given a green card and can’t be deported. If he’s intercepted at sea by the Coast Guard, ICE, or other agency, i.e. wet foot, he can be sent back. Before that it seemed that almost all Cubans were treated as political refugees escaping communism.

    I did find this: “A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent in wedlock acquires U.S. citizenship at birth, provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law.” This is at http://www.foreignborn.com/visas_imm/start_here/4birth_abroad.htm. It does not mention anything about being over the age of 21.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Pete D says:

    Good article describing what a Natural Born Citizen is. Place of birth does not matter as long as one of your parents is an American citizen. McCain was born in Panama. Romney was born in Mexico. Obama was born in…
    http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/

    Like

    • furtiveadmirer says:

      Harvard is conning you.

      They spawn jerks.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Toronto Toto says:

      Romney was not the nominee, so his eligibility was moot. It would have been challenged.

      Goldwater was born in a U.S. territory that later became a state and so was grandfathered in like the founders.

      McCain was almost born in a U.S. territory, but he missed the window by a few months. So, the senate determined active duty with American parents should be natural born. Whether that holds up in court is debatable.

      Obama was born in Hawaii to an American mother, so he is natural born.

      Read the rulings for Rogers v. Bellei, Zimmer v. Acheson and Montana v. Kennedy, as well as U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark and Minor v. Happersett. There is a clear precedent in case law. Cruz is ineligible, because he is a naturalized citizen.

      Like

      • singtune says:

        If the 2 Parents are American Citizens and work for the US Government , a child born in a
        Foreign Country of them~~is Natural Born. Only exception I know .

        Liked by 1 person

      • polk8dot says:

        ‘Cruz is ineligible, because he is a naturalized citizen.’
        And being an actual lawyer very well versed in the US Constitution (vis’a’vi the faux ‘constitutional scholar’ Usurper) Cruz knows this better than anyone.
        Why then is he forging full speed ahead, pretending the issue does not exist?
        With everything he has already put into this, he is clearly intent on forcing a confrontation with the birthers, even though he knows by law he has no chance to win this confrontation.

        It sure makes me very uneasy wondering what he’s truly up to.
        For someone claiming to care greatly about this country, and calling himself a patriot, he is way too willing to do enormous, potentially irrecoverable damage, in the name of his own ambition.
        Huhhhh, not THAT much different from Zero, after all.

        Liked by 3 people

  12. sDee says:

    Simply understanding the Founders’ intent in Article 2 Section 1, explains all that thousands of lawyers judges and pundits have crucial motivation to hide. It was common to protect the highest office from usurpation. A Natural Born Citizen (NBC) had precise meaning at the time our nation was founded. It required the President to be born on US soil (jus soli), and be born of two citizen parents (jus sanguinis ). For centuries this was the maximum protection against usurpation. NBC was not required for Congress.

    Of course the globalists need precedent to render our Constitutional NBC requirement, moot. Consider that with appx 300 million natural born citizens in the US…
    – On the 2008 Presidential ballots McCain was ineligible (jus soli), Obama was ineligible (jus sanguinis), Roger Calero was ineligible (green card holder).
    – The GOP pushes ineligible Presidential contenders including Jindal ((jus sanguinis), Rubio (jus sanguinis).

    Now consider all of the following unchallenged candidates we have “convinced” ourselves are eligble. And ask yourself just exactly WHO, FROM WHERE, COULD NOT run for the office of President of the United States.
    – Obama: born on US soil, to a non-citizen parent
    – McCain: born on foreign soil to citizen parents
    – Rubio: born on US soil to non-citizen parents
    – Jindal: born on US soil to non-citizen parents
    – Cruz: born on foreign soil to a non-citizen parent
    – Calero: born on foreign soil to non-citizen parents

    THIS IS ABSOLUTLEY BEYOND COINCIDENCE!

    A globalist’s dream if I ever did hear one.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Hope's Human says:

      Technically, McCain was born on US soil if he was born in the Canal Zone. It was considered US territory until Carter handed it back to Panama in 1977. Plus, McCain’s father was on active duty at a US military installation.

      Like

      • sDee says:

        McCain was not born in the Canal Zone and it was not considered US territory.
        McCain was born in a private hospital in Colon Panama.

        Liked by 2 people

        • deqwik2 says:

          The US did have territory around Colon & it was considered the Canal Zone. I started to school at Fort Gulick which is in the Colon Panama district. We had to be bused off the base to another district for school because there wasn’t one on Ft Gulick. The fort didn’t have a lot of facilities so I can see why his mother had to go to private hospital. We had to go across to the base on the Pacific side to have access to larger facilities.

          Like

      • Blase Blase says:

        Exactly, a glaring and obvious contradiction to others mentioned. McCain is such a non issue

        Liked by 1 person

      • singtune says:

        Right~~ Citizen Parents working for the US government on Foreign Soil—Child is Natural Born. Only Exception.

        Liked by 2 people

      • saywhat64 says:

        MCCains’s campaign initially argued that he was born on the base until he was proven to be wrong as the evidence showed he was born in a hospital in Colon. After that, the Senate passed a NON-Binding resolution that Mc Cain was eligible because BOTH his parents were US Citizen at the time of his birth. This resolution was signed by both obama and hillary. That is when I believe the RNC made a deal with the DNC to not challenge either obama nor Mc Cain’s eligibility.

        It can be legally argued that natural born citizenship requires two natural law requirements. Jus soli (of the soil) and Jus sanguine (of the blood). As Mc Cain does not satisfy the Jus soli component and obama (if you believe his narrative) does not satisfy the Jus sanguine component. So the elites cut a deal so both candidates would not challenge each other.

        When obama presented his clearly forged ‘long form” birth certificate, the game changed as he now committed two crimes, identity fraud and forgery…

        Like

        • Congress knew in 2004 that the ciitzenship of McCain was in question.
          Darryl Issa: Maximizing voter choice hearing http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-108shrg96813/pdf/CHRG-108shrg96813.pdf

          Congressmen Vic Snyder, Darrell Issa, and Barney Frank have
          introduced H.J. Res. 59, which would amend the Constitution to
          permit naturalized citizens of 35 years to hold the Presidency.

          “Any law that we pass here is open to challenge at the Supreme Court. So we could
          pass a law today allowing someone to be President that previously
          was in doubt. That would include, obviously, those born abroad of
          U.S. citizens, such as Senator McCain, who was born in an area
          that is no longer the United States. It was the United States when
          he was born, the Panama Canal District; today it is not.
          That doubt certainly could be challenged after an election, challenged
          to the U.S. Supreme Court. And the U.S. Supreme Court
          would not have the ability to say: Do we go with the will of the
          people? They would have to say: What is the Constitution and what
          does it say?
          So I think that as much as we could envelop for feel-good purposes
          more and more people into the system of being defined as
          natural born, I do not believe that it would exempt a Presidential
          candidate, if elected, from being open to that challenge. And the
          possibility certainly exists that someone could be elected President
          and their Vice President could be sworn in because the men and
          women of the Supreme Court would have to interpret the Constitution
          as unamended rather than amended by simple legislation or
          statute. And I think that is the most important reason that this
          constitutional amendment is necessary.”

          “Each and every one of the points brought to us here today of uncertainty—uncertainty,
          even the question of Hamilton’s exemption,
          certainly no longer germane today. But Senator McCain, who is to
          say that Senator McCain, if he had been the Republican nominee
          for President in 2000, if he had won by a narrow margin in so few
          States with hundreds or a few thousand votes, who is to say that
          the Supreme Court would not have been faced with two questions—one
          question about whether or not he won the election, and
          a second one about whether he was eligible to be President.
          Certainly in this day and age, anyone can bring a case, and the
          Supreme Court would have an obligation to hear it.”

          Senator Nickles;
          “It is clear that a child born within the physical borders of the
          United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States
          is eligible to run for President. However, many Americans would
          probably be surprised to learn that a constitutional question remains
          as to whether a child born abroad to a U.S. citizen serving
          in the military or serving at a Government post are not clearly, indisputably
          eligible to seek the highest office in our land. Nor is it
          clear whether a child born overseas to a citizen traveling or working
          abroad is eligible to run for President. There are strong legal
          arguments that say these children are eligible, but it certainly is
          not an inarguable point. “

          Like

  13. southernbychoice says:

    Article II, Section I, clause 5 of the Constitution–“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

    Publius Huldah of the Publius Huldah Blog researched NBC for a month before determining that NBC meant that your parents had to be citizens of the United States regardless of where you were born. Here is her first article. Read the Post scripts also.

    https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/the-constitution-vattel-and-natural-born-citizen-what-our-framers-knew/

    And her second article.
    https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/natural-born-citizen/

    If you continue to put forth the idea that one has to have been born in the U.S. then you have bought into the left’s argument which was a smoke screen to deflect from the fact that Obama’s father as listed on the birth certificate was not a U.S. citizen.

    So how come the definition of NBC was not put in the Constitution? Maybe because everyone at that time knew what a NBC was, and through the years forgot the definition. It was around the time of the War of Northern Aggression that citizens stopped reading the Constitution and the Funding documents. Language changes and the meaning of words are forgotten. How many people under the age of 25 know what a rotary phone is or even a party line.

    No Supreme Court, no Congress nor Executive can change or define the Constitution. Only WE THE PEOPLE can.

    Since I don’t make it a habit of commenting I just want to say I believe Trump knows the Constitution better than he is letting on. In 2010 0r 2011 he verified he was a NBC. His mother became a naturalized citizen 4 years before he was born. I goggled it, it was very easy to find. I believe it was a WND site.

    Liked by 3 people

    • sDee says:

      A small but important correction….
      “”If you continue to put forth the idea that one has to have been born in the U.S. then you have bought into the left’s argument which was a smoke screen to deflect from the fact that Obama’s father as listed on the birth certificate was not a U.S. citizen.”

      The intent of Article 2 Section 1 was that both citizens be parents and the candidate be born an US soil. Obama’s smoke screen was putting out false misleading information that he was not born on US soil, distracting from his self-admitted ineligibility based on a non-citizen parent.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Blase Blase says:

        Non citizen parent and FRAUD. Why is this even a flipping discussion? When someone gives up there citizenship to fraudulently collect college money he was not eligible for, he is a felon who gave up his citizenship for FREE SHIT… Coincidence he likes to give ours away? NOT

        Liked by 3 people

      • Dems B. Dcvrs says:

        There really was no “smoke screen” for those of us who took matter of Eligibility seriously. We knew Obama’s Father was not an American, thus making Obama ineligible. We knew Obama’s Mother was to young to pass on Citizenship, thus making Obama ineligible.

        But none of that mattered for two reasons:
        1) Lame Stream Media went to bat for their boy, claiming only one parent had to be an American and Obama’s mother could pass on citizenship (regardless of law on books at time).
        2) Federal Election Commission claimed it was a matter for F.B.I. The F.B.I. said it was outside their jurisdiction based on F.B.I.’s founding guidelines. First time in history, F.B.I. has ever claimed it lacked authority to investigate anything.

        Liked by 3 people

      • saywhat64 says:

        Mc Cain most likely would have won any challenges to his eligibility as he did have two US citizen parents and his father was active military stationed in Panama. I agree that this was all smoke and mirrors to hide the fact that obama’s father was a British citizen. The RNC and Mc Cain knew that if they challenged obama then the DNC and obama would challenge McCain even though in the end IMO McCain would be ruled eligible. A secret deal was made so neither party would challenge each other and all the subsequent cover up for obama began by both parties..

        Like

      • southernbychoice says:

        What is your hard evidence for your statement that NBC had to be born in the U.S.?
        Here is mine. Go to:
        https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/the-constitution-vattel-and-natural-born-citizen-what-our-framers-knew/

        Here is the relevant paragraph from the blog.

        “How the First Congress followed Vattel and our Framers:

        Article I, §8, cl. 4 delegates to Congress the power “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”.6 Pursuant to that power, the First Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1790. Here is the text, which you can find at 1 Stat. at Large, 103:

        “SECTION1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the states wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer; and the clerk of such court shall record such application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States … APPROVED, March 26, 1790.” 7″

        So! This Act of the First Congress implements the Principles set forth in Vattel, embraced by our Framers, and enshrined in Art. II, §1, cl. 5, that:

        A “natural born Citizen” is one who is born of parents who are citizens.
        Minor children born here of aliens do not become citizens until their parents are naturalized. Thus, they are not “natural born” citizens.”

        Go to: 1 Stat. at Large, 103 If it is not highlighted go to the listed site above and scroll down. Click on the 1 Stat site. The relevant information is on page 104.

        The least you could do is read the information listed before telling me I am wrong.

        Donald J Trump–One man with courage makes a majority. Andrew Jackson

        Liked by 1 person

        • southernbychoice says:

          the above reply was meant for sDee

          Like

        • Karmy says:

          “Minor children born here of aliens do not become citizens until their parents are naturalized. Thus, they are not “natural born” citizens.”
          So then all those illegals who came here to have their babies do not have American citizen children? All those anchor babies are still illegal?

          Like

  14. sevenwheel says:

    The liberal media has been giving the kid glove treatment to three individuals for several years now. Since shortly after the 2012 election, the MSM has been running regular puff pieces for three candidates, in the nature of “Look at these fine Republicans! Wouldn’t they made wonderful Presidential candidates!” These three golden boys of the liberal media are:

    Ted Cruz
    Marco Rubio
    Bobby Jindal

    The short answer is that all three have eligibility problems. Now I’m not saying that they are ineligible. That’s a different issue. What I’m saying is that all three have enough ambiguity to be vulnerable to a media assault on their eligibility. Mark my words, if one of those three were to achieve the Republican nomination, the media will turn on a dime. Suddenly, eligibility will become a major, major issue. It will dominate the headlines. Millions of words will be written and hundreds of hours of news airtime will be devoted to explaining why the Republican nominee is ineligible and why the nation is now in a Constitutional crisis. And they will ignore comparisons to Obama. And they will be utterly shameless.

    And you know what, it will work. Because there are enough independents who will believe them — and enough angry “birthers” who spent 8 years standing firm on principle, when both sides were smearing them as racists, and aren’t about to abandon that principle for expediency — to split the Republican vote and hand the election to the Democratic nominee.

    You can argue Cruz’s eligibility until you are blue in the face. That’s beside the point. That won’t change the fact that this is a planned strategy. It’s a trap, and hopefully Donald Trump is poised to ensure that the Republican party doesn’t walk right into that trap.

    Liked by 5 people

    • cehughes says:

      Rubio and Jindal have no eligibility problems as this is settled law. They are natural born citizens.

      While Cruz’s case is different, the State Department has said that people like him are not naturalized citizens.

      According to Constitutional law professor Herb Titus there are only two types of citizens, natural born or naturalized

      Like

      • singtune says:

        With Cruz–he is Native vorn Canadian & was given a Canadian Birth Certificate! His family became Naturalized Citizens when they arrived 4 years, after he was born. No way -Cruz is Natural Born.

        Liked by 2 people

        • cehughes says:

          He may or may not be. As Cruz himself says it has never been litigated. But the U.S. Government does not consider him to be naturalized.

          7 FAM 1131.6-3 Not Citizens by “Naturalization”
          (CT:CON-474; 08-19-2013)
          Section 101(a)(23) INA (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23)) provides that the term “naturalization” means “the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.” Persons who acquire U.S. citizenship at birth by birth abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents who meet the applicable statutory transmission requirements are not considered citizens by naturalization.

          Justice Thomas in Zitotofsky v. Kerry wrote,

          ” . . . in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 688 (1898) ; see also Miller v. Albright, 523 U. S. 420, 456 (1998) (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment) (recognizing that “Congress has the power to set the requirements for acquisition of citizenship by persons not born within the territory of the United States”). It has determined that children born abroad to U. S. parents, subject to some exceptions, are natural-born citizens who do not need to go through the naturalization process. 8 U. S. C. §§ 1401(c), (d), (g).”

          Cruz did not have to go through the naturalization process.

          Like

          • TheseTruths says:

            How does this apply to Cruz? He was born abroad to a non-American father.

            Liked by 1 person

            • cehughes says:

              His mother passed citizenship to him at the moment he was born. The legal definition of naturalization is at some point after birth. Cruz is not a naturalized citizen. There are only the two types of citizens.

              Liked by 1 person

              • singtune says:

                Not true! Both Parents need to be Citizens and in Country, unless they are in the Service of the US Government, at the time, in a Foreign Land.

                Note: I hit the Like button by mistake.I believe you are incorrect.

                Like

                • cehughes says:

                  Sorry but that is not the law. Anyone born in the U.S. with a few excepts is a natural born citizens regardless of the status of the parents. That’s why the courts keep citing Wong Kim Ark. As for Cruz, he is not considered naturalized by the U.S. government.

                  Like

      • saywhat64 says:

        Far from settled law on Jindal or Rubio. Their parents were NOT US citizens at the time of their birth.

        Like

        • cehughes says:

          When the Supreme Court rules on a Constitutional issue their ruling becomes law. The Supreme Court case in 1898 (United States v. Wong Kim Ark) set the precedent by which Rubio, Jindal and Obama are natural born citizens. Almost a dozen lower court rulings have cited the precedent of Wong Kim Ark in ruling Obama a natural born citizen. By extension the same precedent would apply to Rubio and Jindal.

          Sorry but it is settled law for almost 120 years.

          Like

            • cehughes says:

              The US government in their appellant brief wrote that the lower court erred when it ruled Wong Kim Ark was a “natural born citizen”. But Judge Morrow like Justice Gray, only said that Wong was a citizen. Later in the brief, the Government said that the Supreme Court’s deciding in Wong’s favor would make him eligible to be president.

              Chief Justice Fuller in his dissenting opinion said that the ruling would make a Chinese child born in the US to alien parents, eligible to be president.

              Two prominent attorneys (William Dameron Guthrie and Alexander Porter Morse) at the time of the Wong decision both said that it made children born in the U.S. to alien Chinese parents, eligible to be President.

              Constitutional Law Professor Herb Titus (a Vattelist) in his amicus brief in Rudy v. Lee essential told the Supreme Court that the decision will be between Justice Gary’s decision and Chief Justice Fuller’s dissenting opinion in determining who is a natural born citizen.

              Recently about a dozen courts have cited Wong Kim Ark as binding precedent for the meaning of the term natural born citizen.

              So apparently legal authorities disagree with Leo’s interpretation of the Gray decision.

              Liked by 1 person

              • I don’t think you are reading Justice fullers statement correctly if you are reading it all.
                This is what he said.
                “Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”

                This is saying that he thinks it is unreasonable to say that everyone born in the U.S. regardless of parentage would be eligible if those born abroad are not.

                Like

                • cehughes says:

                  Of course that it what he is saying. Under the majority opinion that is exactly the result. Remember that CJ Fuller also said that Justice Gray’s opinion said that it was the English Common Law rule that defined natural born citizen.

                  “And it is this rule [English Common Law], pure and simple, which it is asserted [by mmajority] determined citizenship of the United States during the entire period prior to the passage of the act of April 9, 1866, and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, and governed the meaning of the words “citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen” used in the Constitution as originally framed and adopted. I submit that no such rule obtained during the period referred to, and that those words bore no such construction; that the act of April 9, 1866, expressed the contrary rule; that the Fourteenth Amendment prescribed the same rule as the act, and that, if that amendment bears the construction now put upon it, it imposed the English common law rule on this country for the first time, and made it “absolute and unbending” just as Great Britain was being relieved from its inconveniences.”

                  Like

      • Frank O'Pinion says:

        Read the information at the following weblink:
        http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

        Then return with your eyes wide open and an apology for stating that two anchor babies are eligible for the highest office of the U S.A.

        Liked by 2 people

        • cehughes says:

          I started to read your link but the very first item “born a citizen versus natural born citizen” is factually wrong.

          Hamilton’s June 18th, 1787 does not contain the requirement for the president to be “born a citizen”. You can read his June 18th draft here:

          http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_618.asp

          The Hamilton draft with the “born a citizen” clause was never submitted to the Convention but instead was, according to Hamilton, given to Madison several days after the Convention closed. BTW, Hamilton left the Convention at the end of June and didn’t return until the September 6th. Also Hamilton wrote in 1795 that to learn the meaning of terms in the Constitution we need to study English law.

          So why should I waste my time reading a website that cannot get basic historical facts correct?

          What you and others in these comments do not understand is that nothing that came before the Wong Kim Ark case in 1898 really matters. The Supreme Court decided the issue. It is the case that has been cited over and over again as being binding precedent on all state and federal courts. There are as Judge Stansfield indicated, only two ways to overturn the precedent.

          “The issue of the definition of “natural born citizen” is firmly resolved by the United States Supreme Court in a prior opinion [Wong Kim Ark], and as this Court sees it, that holding is binding on the ultimate issue in this case. While Ms Fair and Ms. Miltenberger may disagree with the holding of the Supreme Court, from a perspective of stare decises, the only means by which an opinion of the Supreme Court concerning substantive law can be overturned is either by a subsequent holding of the Supreme Court or an Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. Both have occurred in the past on very rare occasions, but this Court does not believe that it has the discretion to simply disregard a holding which clearly applies to the definition of “natural born citizen” as it applies to President Obama.” Fair v. Obama in the Carroll County Circuit Court, 5th Judicial Circuit

          Wong Kim Ark applies equally to Rubio and Jindal.

          Like

    • furtiveadmirer says:

      Trump plays chess. You should know that by now.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Thank you. I have been saying this for awhile and getting the tin foil hat treatment.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Dems B. Dcvrs says:

      “enough angry “birthers” who spent 8 years standing firm on principle, when both sides were smearing them as racists”

      As much as I would love the Karma of seeing a completely Ineligible Republican, one that Left vehemently hates, elected as POTUS; as an American who believes in Constitution, I couldn’t as such support it.

      Liked by 1 person

  15. Katherine McCoun says:

    Agree that he is ineligible. Clear cut case. And if Cruz is such a Constitutional man then his skating the Constitution when beneficial to him makes him very suspect and wrecks his credibility. I like much of what Cruz has to say although he has lost me occasionally on actions. However, he is simply not eligible. Period. If he wants to be a great politician and American and Patriot then find another position in which to serve…continue in the Senate, become Supreme Court Judge, etc.

    Liked by 6 people

  16. Spar Harmon says:

    As with most really good riddles, the answer is right in front of our collective faces. I have read everything and now have a severe headache. I don’t do well gnawing old bones.
    What distinguishes these two cases? Look at the two in the side by side pictures. They are both pointing wit’ dey pointin’ finger.
    In medieval Germany, if a child showed a preference for it’s left hand it was considered devil spawn, taken by the heels and brains dashed out, the left hand by convention being used to clean self after defecation.
    Clearly Obama is pointing cursively with his left hand in true Arabian style.
    What more do you need. Bueno! Headache gone!

    Liked by 1 person

    • bonnie says:

      are you pro choice?

      Like

      • Spar Harmon says:

        I will assume, bonnie, you are addressing me.
        Using these poor terms people bat about, I think life trumps choice in most cases. I have borne witness to many conscientious women wrestle with this all-options-fraught-with-pain decision; some even asked me and other friends to help them work it through. One friend chose to risk her life to allow the child a chance. They are both now dead.
        Even though life trumps choice in my opinion, each woman still has to make her own choice. That has always been true.
        That a woman must be free to chose, bottom line, does not mean I in any way condone casual abortion for mere convenience.
        I have made bad choices that resulted in great harm, even death, to another. I was married to a woman who aborted and was never the same after. I took part in the delivery of both my son and daughter at home.
        I hope you can understand that I have no patience with the lack of compassion in short answers to such a question.
        Why do you ask?

        Like

  17. Frank O'Pinion says:

    The Framers drafted and adopted the Constitution and its natural born citizen clause in 1787. The Constitution does not define the clause. We therefore need to look to see what their definition of the clause was then, unless there is some evidence that the clause was ever amended by a duly ratified constitutional amendment. The only constitutional amendment that defines citizenship is the Fourteenth Amendment. Both Minor v. Happersett (1875) and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) have both explained that the meaning of a natural born citizen is not found in the Fourteenth Amendment. Hence, Article II’s natural born citizen clause has never been amended by our Constitution.

    Our U.S. Supreme Court has informed that one way to learn what meanings the Framers gave to terms or clauses they put into the Constitution at that time is to look to the state of things and meanings that existed at that time. Both Minor and Wong Kim Ark have explained that one significant piece of evidence to look at is the common law that existed at the time of the Framing. Both Minor and Wong Kim Ark defined a natural born citizen under the common law with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted and adopted the Constitution. The unanimous U.S. Supreme Court explained in Minor that that common law defined a natural born citizen as a child born in country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth and that all the rest of the people were “aliens or foreigners” who needed to be naturalized under Acts of Congress or treaties. Minor even added that “there have been doubts” whether children born in the United States to alien parents were even “citizens” under the Fourteenth Amendment. Since Virginia Minor was a natural born citizen and a fortiori a citizen, there was no need for Minor to address and answer the Fourteenth Amendment question. Wong was not a natural born citizen under the Framers’ common law, but he was born in the United States. Wong Kim Ark had to therefore to address and answer the Fourteenth Amendment question of whether he was born “subject to the jurisdiction.” Relying on the colonial English common law as and aid to interpret and apply that clause, it held that children born in the United States to alien parents who were permanently domiciled and resident in the United States and neither foreign diplomats nor military invaders were also “citizens” of the United States from the moment of birth by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court did not need to nor did it hold that Wong was an Article II natural born citizen. Hence, not only did Acts of Congress and treaties make more citizens of the United States of people who would otherwise not be citizens, but so did the Fourteenth Amendment. And Wong Kim Ark informed that persons born in the United States to qualifying alien parents were included at “citizens” by the force of the Fourteenth Amendment.

    Senator Ted Cruz was born in Canada to a U.S. citizen mother and non-U.S. citizen father. He cannot be a citizen under the common law relied upon by the Framers to define a natural born citizen. He therefore does not meet this constitutional common law definition of a natural born citizen which would a fortiori make him a “citizen” also. Nor can he be a “citizen” of the United States “at birth” under the Fourteenth Amendment, which status is reserved only for children who are born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and who, not meeting the requirements of the common law which defines a natural born citizen, are not natural born citizens. Rather, he falls into that class of persons who at common law, because they were born in a foreign country, needed to be naturalized by an Act of Congress or treaty. Since he was born out of the United States, although to one U.S. citizen parent, Congress saw fit to naturalize him as a “citizen” of the United States “at birth.” Without such naturalization act, Cruz would be an alien at common law. If Cruz needed such naturalization act to be a citizen and if without such act he would be an alien at common law, he simply is not and cannot be a natural born citizen, for such a citizen does not need any positive law in order to be a citizen. See Wong Kim Ark (considered children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents to be naturalized by acts of Congress and explained that under the English common law, only children born in the King’s dominion and under his jurisdiction were natural born subjects and that any child born out of that dominion needed an act of Parliament to naturalize him or her); and Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971) (both majority and dissent said the same as Wong Kim Ark which was that children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents become citizens of the United States only through the grace of Congress who made them citizens through a naturalization Act without which those children would be aliens). It simply defies logic and good reason and renders the natural born citizen clause a nullity to conclude that a person who would not be a citizen at all without a naturalization act of Congress is a natural born citizen. Including such a person as a natural born citizen effectively reads the natural born citizen clause out of the Constitution, but does so without constitutional amendment.

    In short, Mr. Cruz is a “citizen” of the United States “at birth” by virtue of a naturalization Act of Congress since his birth in 1970. As such, he is not and cannot be an Article II “natural born citizen.” Since he is neither “a natural born Citizen, [n]or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,” he is not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

    For my response to Neal Katyal and Paul Clement article, see Mario Apuzzo, A Response to Neil Katyal and Paul Clement on the Meaning of a Natural Born Citizen , accessed at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/03/a-response-to-neil-katyal-and-paul.html .

    Credit: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2840767/posts

    Liked by 5 people

    • furtiveadmirer says:

      Great Irish name, Mr. O’pinion!
      & GREAT EXPLANATION!
      Never Forget your heritage!

      Liked by 2 people

    • cehughes says:

      Mario Apuzzo presented these same arguments in the courts in Vermont and in New Jersey. Both times the courts rejected his argument as being without merit. Here is the video of his argument before the New Jersey Court of Appeals.

      The Appeals Court found his argument had no legal merit.

      “We have carefully considered appellants’ arguments and conclude that these arguments are without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in ALJ Jeff S. Masin’s thorough and thoughtful written opinion of April 10, 2012, as adopted by the Secretary on April 12, 2012.”

      http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-unpublished/2012/a4478-11.html

      Like

  18. Justice_099 says:

    I am not a scholar in this area, nor qualified in anyway to determine this. But I can tell you that it has all the feelings of backroom snickers by the media who will drag out the birther argument and point out the hypocrisy of the right if Cruz got the nomination.

    It really wouldn’t even matter if he eligible or ineligible, the very fact that it could be questioned and simultaneously put the right in a position of defending against the very thing they have attacked Obama for would do enormous damage in the general.

    The avergae joe voter isn’t a constitutional scholar either. With Obama, the average person only heard from the media how ridiculous it was to question. They mocked and ridiculed. Never took the charge seriously and never offered any education to the viewers. It was just absurd on its face, they said.

    If Ted Cruz were to win the nomination, the chalkboards would be brought out on every network in the country.

    It would be devastating, regardless of whether it was true or not.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Dems B. Dcvrs says:

      Alan Grayson, one of Left’s big embarrassments, has announced he will Sue if Cruz is elected stating Cruz is not eligible. Which is so ironic, being Grayson didn’t Sue Obama over Obama’s ineligibility. Another example of Left’s Rules are for thee, not we.

      Liked by 1 person

      • saywhat64 says:

        In the end, Grayson will have no standing in the courts. Obama and the DNC have already shown the way to get away with this crime.

        Cruz may succeed in getting away with his lack of eligibility, but it does not make it right. And more importantly, he should know better as he touts himself as a constitutionalist (just like obama does)..

        Liked by 2 people

        • liberty2828 says:

          “And more importantly, he should know better as he touts himself as a constitutionalist (just like obama does).”

          Interesting point… and both lying lawyers with voices equally as irritating.

          Liked by 1 person

        • singtune says:

          I totally agree. It does make it Worse, especially since he says he is such a Big Constitutionalist.

          Like

          • Old fogey says:

            Excellent comments by you all. The last thing the Republican Party needs is a discussion on eligibility to muddy the waters. It is amazing that the Party sat by without advising prospective candidates that their eligibility would be questioned not only by the media and the opposition but by Republicans themselves who had fought hard to raise this important issue when Obama was running in 2008. Was no one paying attention?

            Like

          • Karmy says:

            Which means he is certainly not worthy of our trust and consideration. Just another ambitious politician who will do and say anything to achieve his goal. It’s actually very insulting to continue his farce. Shows how little he values the American people.

            Like

  19. I’m reminded of an email I received some time ago. It asks four great questions re Obama’s background which the author believes WILL be answered eventually…

    Back in 1961 people of color were called ‘Negroes’. So how can the Obama ‘birth certificate’ state he is “African-American” when the term wasn’t even used at that time ?
    The birth certificate that the White House released lists Obama’s birth as August 4, 1961 & Lists Barack Hussein Obama as his father. No big deal, Right? At the time of Obama’s birth, it also shows that his father is aged 25 years old, and that Obama’s father was born in “Kenya, East Africa”.
    This wouldn’t seem like anything of concern, except the fact that Kenya did not even exist until 1963, two whole years after Obama’s birth, and 27 years after his father’s birth. How could Obama’s father have been born in a country that did not yet Exist ? Up and until Kenya was formed in 1963, it was known as the “British East Africa Protectorate”. (check it below)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenya_28http:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenya
    %29
    On the Birth Certificate released by the White House, the sted place of birth is “Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital”.
    This cannot be, because the hospital(s) in question in 1961 were called “KauiKeolani Children’s Hospital” and “Kapi’olani Maternity Home”, Respectively.
    The name did not change to Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital until 1978, when these two hospitals merged. How can this particular name of the hospital be on a birth certificate dated 1961 if this name had not yet been applied to it until 1978 ?
    (CHECK IT BELOW)
    http://http/http/www.kapiolani.org/women-and-children/about-us/default.aspx
    (http://www.kapiolani.org/women-and-children/about-us/default.aspx)
    Why hasn’t this been discussed in the major media?
    Perhaps a clue comes from Obama’s book on his father. He states how proud he is of his father fighting in WW II. I’m not a math genius, so I may need some help from you. Barack Obama’s “birth certificate” says his father was 25 years old in 1961 when Obama was born. That should have put his father’s date of birth approximately 1936-if my math holds (Honest! I did that without a calculator!!!) Now we need a non-revised history book-one that hasn’t been altered to satisfy the author’s goals-to verify that WW II was basically between 1939 and 1945. Just how many 3 year old fight in Wars? Even in the latest stages of WW II his father wouldn’t have been more than 9 years old. Does that mean that Mr. Obama is a liar, or simply chooses to alter the facts to satisfy his imagination or political purposes ?

    – RRS in NJ

    Liked by 2 people

    • bonnie says:

      clear,concise and says it all

      Liked by 1 person

    • cehughes says:

      The e-mail is false on several issues.

      First, Obama’s BC does not list his race. It lists his father’s race as “African”. Which the 1962 Kenya Census forms listed as a racial designation. BTW, “Afro-American” was a recognized term in 1961.

      Kenya has existed by that name since the 1920s. A search on Google Books website turns up hundreds of references to Kenya from the 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s.

      The hospital has been called “Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital” since at least the 1930s. A search on Google Scholar website turns up dozens of medical journals from the 1940s and 1950s that reference the name. Also other Hawaiian birth certificates from 1961 list that name as the hospital.

      Like

  20. Dems B. Dcvrs says:

    “Well, if that is accurate, then how is Ted Cruz eligible?”

    Answer: Ted Cruz is not eligible for same reasons Obama was not eligible.
    Which is why, if Cruz would win Republican nomination, I will not vote for him.

    Liked by 4 people

  21. rashamon says:

    I’m just enjoying the heck out of these comments — how many? 350 plus? Free speech and The Constitution may still be alive and well.

    Liked by 3 people

  22. TheseTruths says:

    “Help me understand,” the article says.

    The premise of the article is flawed, in that it assumes that Birthers were trying to prove Obama was born in Kenya. That is not the crux of the matter. The issues surrounding the investigation by Sheriff Arpaio and Mike Zullo into the birth certificate have to do with proof that the birth certificate was a forgery, period. Now, a lot of people think Obama was not born in America, but a lot of people think he might have been born in Hawaii, but that the birth certificate he presented was fraudulent in some way.
    Which leads us to Ted Cruz and the second flawed premise (that Birthers think Cruz is eligible). Everything written by Birthers that I have read, agrees that Cruz is not eligible — and that Obama is not eligible, even if born in Hawaii, because his father was not an American citizen. A natural born citizen is born on American soil to two American citizen parents.

    So there is no riddle when it comes to Birthers.

    Liked by 3 people

    • smrstrauss says:

      There is nothing wrong with Obama’s birth certificate.

      Birthers just keep claiming that Obama’s birth certificate is forged and that Obama was not born in Hawaii for their own obvious motives. Those are the same motives that led birther sites to claim that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya—-when she really said that he was born IN HAWAII in three interviews.

      In fact, birther sites showed only part of one of those three interviews, carefully cutting off the tape recordings on their sites just before she was asked where he was born and replied: “In Hawaii, where his father was studying at the time.”

      So birther sites are lying. Moreover, they are trying to hide the proof that Obama was born in Hawaii. For example, they never showed their readers that FOUR officials of Hawaii including the former Republican governor had repeatedly confirmed that they sent the short form and long form Hawaii birth certificates to Obama and that every single fact on the copies that the White House put online are exactly the same as on what they sent him.

      AND, guess what, there isn’t even proof that Obama’s mother HAD A PASSPORT in 1961, and very very few 18-year-olds did at the time. And even fewer, EXTREMELY few, women traveled abroad during the last few months of pregnancy in 1961 because of the risk of stillbirths.

      Yet birthers hope that they will find someone so GULLIBLE that they will just assume that both of those two unlikely things took place AND that the officials of both parties in Hawaii are lying AND that Obama’s birth certificate is forged AND that the public Index Data file was forged AND that the birth notices to the 1961 Hawaii newspapers were forged, and in this case forged on two different microfilm rolls (one for each newspaper) and then both of them were smuggled into two different libraries without anyone noticing.

      The above makes it obvious that the “it was forged” claim comes from birther motives.

      Another classic birther ploy is to claim “see, there are layers, there would not be layers if it were not forged.” But, duh, layers are NORMAL when a complex document is scanned, compressed and put into PDF and then that PDF file is opened in Adobe Illustrator. That is how PDF works with a complex scanned document, and Adobe is designed to identify and work with layers when it opens a PDF file.

      Other claims are answered by THIS (which birther sites have never been able to answer):

      http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/11/blogger-shows-obama-birth-certificate-artifacts-caused-by-xerox-machine-no-joy-in-birtherville/

      Like

      • saywhat64 says:

        obama’s forged birth certificate lists his father’s race as “african”…There is no other proof needed to prove the birth certificate is forged.

        BTW I recognize the handle “smrstraus” as a long standing obot throwing out propaganda for the last 7 years. Hey straus, are you at least being paid by moveon.org ???

        Liked by 1 person

        • smrstrauss says:

          Re: “African.” Here is the telephone number of the Department of Health in Hawaii:

          (808) 586-4442..

          Call them up and ask them whether you can now and could in 1961 use ANY word to describe your race. Any world at all, or any combination of words, like Chinese-American or American-Chinese, or for that matter Italian or Swedish or African. (For those too lazy to call, the answer is YES.)

          And what was the word that AFRICAN exchange students commonly used to describe their race? Answer: AFRICAN. And what was Obama’s father? An AFRICAN exchange student.

          Nope, I’m not paid by anyone. However, if I were paid, and you were paid, and we were both paid—that would still not change the facts, and the fact is that in Hawaii you were allowed to use ANY word to describe your race (but by all means call and check), and it remains a fact that in the 1960s AFRICAN exchange students commonly called their race AFRICAN.

          Like

  23. drdeb says:

    Here is an excellent article relating to this discussion: Reality Check: Obama Ineligibility Attorney; A Citizen Is One Thing, But A Natural Born Citizen Is Another
    http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/11/reality-check-obama-ineligibility.html#more

    Like

  24. drdeb says:

    The following excellent article will add some facts to this discussion regarding a citizen VS a Natural Born Citizen
    Reality Check: Obama Ineligibility Attorney; A Citizen Is One Thing, But A Natural Born Citizen Is Another
    http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/11/reality-check-obama-ineligibility.html
    And NO “Obama”, Cruz, Rubio or Jendel are NOT natural born citizens.
    I agree with the statements posted by others on here that the attempt by any of them to run for President or VP is simply a NWO USA takeover ploy.

    Liked by 1 person

  25. jjan67 says:

    IMHO Jon Jays letter to George Washington clears the whole issue up.

    “Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expresly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

    If a person has any foreign citizenship at birth, that person is not a Natural-Born citizen.
    That diqualifys Obama, Cruze, Rubio and Jindal all because they inherited foreign citizenship from their fathers at birth.
    To the orininal question though, Cruz is identical to Obamas birth cirtificate issue and probably will be challenged if he becomes the nominee.

    Liked by 3 people

    • cehughes says:

      The Supreme Court set the precedent in 1898. It is settled law that Obama, Rubio and Jindal are natural born citizens. Cruz’s case is the only one with any question and IMO any challenge would be in his favor.

      Liked by 1 person

  26. avogadra says:

    388 comments so far. I assume Sundance has read them all. And what is his conclusion?

    Like

  27. truthseekerr says:

    I am convinced Obama’s REAL father is Frank Marshall Davis. Obama does not resemble that little Kenyan at all. Obama is 5’11”. Google Frank Marshal Davis and prepare to be blown away.

    Like

  28. WWJD says:

    When Obama was elected without his background being vetted it changed the precedence for elections. Obama could have been eligible even though father was Muslim, if his mom had vetted him many say. I seriously doubt she married Obama Sr. he was already married. But Obama was in school after his mom went to Indonesia as Barry Soetoro after his Adoption. He went to public school that was only for Indonesian Citizens. He even went to college as a foreign student. He may have been born in USA but this adoption changed things, but there is a process called naturalization but there is no proof he had it. Cruz was born in USA, he had dual citizenship, but he corrected it. Either way it’s done, precedence has changed and anyone who has a birth parent here whether adopted or what in another country can be POTUS.

    Like

  29. Jim says:

    His father was Kenyan, not an American. This fact alone means that Obama required a statute from Congress to obtain citizenship. Ergo, he was NOT naturally born a citizen. Citizen by statute yes, natural born citizen? NO.

    Liked by 1 person

  30. surakvulcan says:

    OK, I’ll try again. I was looking for replies to my comment, but I can’t find my original comment anymore. Don’t know where it went.
    My suggestion was that if we are discussing presidential eligibility, as the title of the article suggests, we should consider the question of 0bama’s Indonesian citizenship, which was required for his school attendance as a child, when he was adopted by Indonesian Lolo Soetero. I would like to know on what day 0bama renounced his Indonesian citizenship. The Constitution holds that an office holder in the US government cannot owe allegiance to any foreign power.
    Has anyone litigated this issue?

    Like

    • cehughes says:

      Under Indonesian law in the 1960s Obama would have needed to be adopted by his fifth birthday (August 4th, 1966) but we know that he was still not adopted by October, 1967. There was no other way for him to become an Indonesian citizen. The Indonesian schools did not require Indonesian citizenship to attend.

      Like

  31. anon says:

    Well, call me ignorant here, but here’s the issue with Obama vs. Cruz vs. Rubio.
    To be eligible to run for President, Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States shall be eligible to the Office of President.”
    1. Born with American citizenship (Ar
    This means
    a) One of your two parent MUST be an American citizen
    or
    b) You must be born on American soil. (This one is still up for debate with the 14th for illegals).
    AND
    c) Must be at least 35 years old
    AND
    d) Must have lived in the United States for at least 14 years.

    Ted Cruz: His Father didn’t become an American until 2005 ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_Bienvenido_Cruz. His Mother was born in the US in Delaware, making her a US Citizen. As a result, he, in theory is eligible. Has he produced a birth certificate – I hope so.

    Marco Rubio: Parents both Cuban when he was born, but immigrated legally. He was born in the USA though, making him a legal citizen, and eligible for office. Birth certificates should be easy to find on this one.

    Obama: Mother was an American, Father was from Kenya on a visa (foreign student), separated on the same month that Barry was born, and divorced a few years later. In theory, there should be no issue here. The issue was with Obama himself not wanting to ‘prove’ that he was born in America – period.

    I personally think that the 14th amendment needs a redo. In theory, You could have an ISIS (or anyone else wishing to f with the system) come here illegally or as a refugee, and deliver what effectively will be a terrorist against this county, legally able to become president.

    Like

  32. WWJD says:

    “While the field of candidates for the next presidential election is
    still taking shape, at least one potential candidate, Senator Ted Cruz,
    was born in a Canadian hospital to a U.S. citizen mother.Despite
    the happenstance of a birth across the border, there is no question
    that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a “natural
    born Citizen” within the meaning of the Constitution. Indeed, because
    his father had also been resident in the United States, Senator Cruz
    would have been a “natural born Citizen” even under the Naturalization
    Act of 1790.”

    http://harvardlawreview.org/20

    Liked by 1 person

    • singtune says:

      I do not Agree –I hit the like Button as I hit the Reply! Cruz has a Canadian Birth Certificate! It is even pictured many places online, if you choose to look. If you research about Cruz you find that his Mother never even registered him for Dual Citizenship. His Father was a Natural Born Cuban, at the time of his Birth in Canada. Both Parents are not Citizens and they never even moved to the US until 1974. Cruz is Not Natural Born.
      NOTE: If the Parents are both Citizens and are in the Service of the US Government & living in a Foreign Country that is the only Exception. In any case, Both Parents Must be US Citizens!

      Like

  33. WWJD says:

    Citizenship in America since the 14th Amendment is not determined by geography as much as it is jurisdiction. This is why we oppose “anchor babies” or so-called birth right citizenship. The idea that if two illegal aliens come here and have a kid, that means their kid is an American. No, because both the parents are still under the jurisdiction of a foreign government, so is their child. This is why when the U.N. ambassador to France has a child in NYC, the kid is French and not American. Citizenship is determined by jurisdiction.

    In Ted Cruz’s case, his mother was under jurisdiction of the U.S. government as a citizen. As was his father depending on interpretation, because he had come here legally to escape Castro and was being normalized at the time. They were temporarily living in Calgary on behalf of the oil/gas business. Therefore, in this case Cruz has “dual citizenship” according to the laws of Canada (he was born there) and the laws here (his mother was a U.S. citizen).

    This also explains why John McCain was qualified despite being born in the Panama Canal Zone, which was still under U.S. jurisdiction at the time.

    Some believe both parents must be natural-born citizens and no dual citizenship for a candidate to meet that threshold, citing a book called “The Laws of Nations” that was written in 1758 and is said to have inspired the Founding Fathers to use the phrase. However, by that interpretation we didn’t have an eligible president until Martin Van Buren.

    But the game-changer in this debate is the 14th Amendment, ratified after the Civil War to avoid the South saying the newly freed slaves weren’t American citizens and should be deported. The 14th Amendment clarifies citizenship to now be determined by jurisdiction, not just geography. Since the slaves were brought here under the jurisdiction of the U.S. government, they and their now free descendants are citizens. – Deace

    Like

    • “In Ted Cruz’s case, his mother was under jurisdiction of the U.S. government as a citizen. ” In the Case of Rogers V Bellei the majority opinion held that the 14th Amendment does not apply to those children born abroad. Also children who acquire citizenship by Art I Sec 8 powers of congress are wholly and only statutory citizens. The minority agreeing with the majority were clear when they made this statement. “Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship
      Page 401 U. S. 840
      under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word “naturalize” in this way has a considerable constitutional history. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, § 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen. The first congressional exercise of this power, entitled “An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” was passed in 1790 at the Second Session of the First Congress. It provided in part:
      “And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”
      1 Stat. 103, 104. This provision is the earliest form of the statute under which Bellei acquired his citizenship. Its enactment as part of a “Rule of Naturalization” shows, I think, that the First Congress conceived of this and most likely all other purely statutory grants of citizenship as forms or varieties of naturalization. However, the clearest expression of the idea that Bellei and others similarly situated should for constitutional purposes be considered as naturalized citizens is to be found in United States v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U. S. 649(1898):”

      “No, because both the parents are still under the jurisdiction of a foreign government, so is their child. This is why when the U.N. ambassador to France has a child in NYC, the kid is French and not American. Citizenship is determined by jurisdiction.” Embassaries are not granted citizenship because they are explicitly exepmt and have diplomatic immunity to our laws. It has nothing to do with the 14th Amendment.

      John McCain was not eligible because he was not born in the United States. He was not born on the naval base or the canal zone, and SR 511 has no legal binding authority and beyond the 6 co-sponors there is no record of anyone else agreeing with this resolution.

      “Some believe both parents must be natural-born citizens and no dual citizenship for a candidate to meet that threshold, citing a book called “The Laws of Nations” that was written in 1758 and is said to have inspired the Founding Fathers to use the phrase. However, by that interpretation we didn’t have an eligible president until Martin Van Buren.” Not the case, because Presidents 1-7, 9 were all “Citizens at the time of the adoption of this Consitution” and eligible to be President of the United States. All other Presidents minus Arthur who lied about his father and burned his records and O who has been under scrutiny and hid his records, were natural born citizens who were born IN the United States to TWO citizen parents.

      Like

  34. William says:

    Whatever views any of us may have on what constitute Natural Born citizen are meaningless and irrelevant. Why? Because some person or persons is or are already determining whether or not a potential candidate for the office meets or fails to meet the Natural Born requirement for eligibility. Whoever it is that’s making the decision, I would assume, are doing so based on written laws and regulations. Talking among ourselves about who qualifies to be Natural Born is a waste of effort. Instead, look for the decision makers and what’s the basis for their judgement. Obviously if Cruz and Rubio and others are current candidates for the presidency, then the judgment has already been made as to their eligibility. The question should be who made those judgements? Then ask if those making the judgements are qualified? Finally, what is or are the basis of their judgements or decisions? I believe that is where our energies should be spent because the source of the problem, if there is one, should lie there. And if found, can be tackled, legally.

    Liked by 1 person

  35. robotech master says:

    O on a side note for this.

    Depending on the state that Cruz birth is registered in he can pull the same trick obama did.

    The vastly majority of states allow you to change just about anything on your long form/short form cert of live birth(not the original). Obama changed his birth location to hawaii where he was registered. Depending on the state Cruz can do the same thing. Not only that but once changed that state will be required by law to state that cruz was born in the state regardless of the reality of it being otherwise.

    This is the reason that obama original birth cert is under lock and key. Now its doubtful that the state cruz is registered in will do the same but it would be really funny if they did.

    Liked by 1 person

    • singtune says:

      Interesting! However Cruz has a Canadian Birth Certificate! How can that be transferred to Texas & be a Birth Certificate here? Especially since his Father was a Natural Born Cuban at the time of his Birth & not an American Citizen or Canadian Citizen at all. Both Parents need to be Citizens a the time of Birth.

      Like

      • robotech master says:

        Doesn’t matter. Like obama, cruz’s birth must be registered at a US hospital or something along that line for him to have gained US citizenship. Whether this was done right after birth or later it has to be registered. So a state/town/hospital will “officially” record cruz’s birth and produce the original never supposed to be changed birth cert. Under many state laws cruz can then change his birth location on his long/short form cert of live birth to that state/town/hospital that he registered at. So if the state he was registered in has laws that allow that(most do due to alot of reasons mainly marriage and adoption issues) he can be “officially” born in the US.

        Like

  36. garnet92 says:

    I’ll start by saying that before any research on the issue, my default opinion was that “natural born citizen” meant that the child was born to two citizen parents on U.S. soil. That’s the simplest, most straightforward definition of the term. However, since Obama entered the picture, the matter has become much more complicated.

    I’ve read, or at least scanned, all of the comments here and on countless of other posts/articles on the NBC subject and the opinions vary greatly with each commenter being absolutely sure that his/her opinion is 100% true.

    So, my research led me to what I believe to be the most studied, most accurate, and most definitive conclusion I’ve seen (short of a Supreme Court Decision) – and that is the “verdict” of the Congressional Research Service (CRS). The CRS is a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress and work exclusively for the United States Congress. They provide policy and legal analysis to committees and Members of both the House and Senate, regardless of party affiliation.

    The CRS is well-known for analysis that is authoritative, confidential, objective and nonpartisan.
    CRS reviewed the natural-born issue in a November 14, 2011 report based on questions relating to President Obama’s qualifications. Coincidentally, the report also covers Cruz’s situation.

    It concludes that someone born abroad to an American parent could legally qualify to be president. You can read the full 53-page report (.pdf) in the CRS Study link below.
    So, in conclusion, I believe that Ted Cruz IS eligible and I base my opinion on three things: 1) the CRS study and decision, 2) the Harvard Law Review, and 3) the fact that Cruz would have satisfied himself that he could qualify or he wouldn’t have bothered to enter the race.

    CRS Study: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf
    Harvard Law: http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/

    Like

    • robotech master says:

      The problem with the CRS is that whole report was setup to make obama legit. If that report had come out in say 1998 or 2004 it could be held with some weight behind it. The report was written to basically try to stop people from going after obama on his second run for president. Obama’s government is well known for doing obama’s bidding.

      The other problem of the report is they never look or check if obama’s info was in fact legit. They assumed things based on the info they were presented. This shows that didn’t have any interest in doing the true footwork and independent analysis. They produced the report that they were told to produce. This is basically how obama’s slipped through the cracks… everyone just assumed he was legit and no one bothered to check for sure.

      Like

    • keebler AC says:

      Sorry, I don’t mean to extend the conversation longer than needed……but I have to speak up when the conclusion made doesn’t work due to several flaws. I’ll just state though that the CRS and Harvard Law opinions are only opinions, and flawed at best. As an example, Harvard opines that you only have to be born of one citizen even if in a foreign country to be natural born. Case law Minors & Happersett has already refuted this way back before 2000 that you have to born in the country of the parents to parents who are citizens of the country – at minimum. The key is plural “parents”. The wording is the same in the Constitution. Legal phrasing is such that it is as specific as possible, as we all know, leaving as little to be interpreted as possible. If the framers intended to say only 1 citizen parent, they would have written so. For example. you have to be born in the country of a parent (singular) who is a citizen (singular) of the country.

      Born of two citizens in a foreign country also does not work for natural born because I don’t think the framers would have been so stupid as to allow a child born to naturalized americans who then return to their homeland with dual citizenship to raise their child to adulthood under different culture……to then return and be president of America when he understands little of the country and has more emotional tie to the foreign land. Let’s stop there and stop arguing if birth here is necessary because it is.

      Empirically I see that loyalty in Ted and Marco is mixed and conflictory. So experience is needed to understand if Vattel’s Law as universal “truth” is valid. I myself see that it is. Dual citizenship of course is a no-brainer. . Also the mother has to have lived in this country until age of maturity before she can transfer natural born status to the child. If she has lived here all her young life then chances are less that she will go to a foreign country to live with say a naturalized american father. But at least, she was raised in the country and can transmit those values to the child. Once a child goes to live in a foreign country with american parents until adulthood, chances are their citizenship would have to become dual – hence no longer eligible.

      Like

      • smrstrauss says:

        Re Minor v. Happersett.

        Answer: No the Minor v. Happersett ruling did not say that at all. Birthers just say that it did, but it didn’t. It said that it was never doubted that a person born in the country with citizen parents was a Natural Born Citizen. But it did not say that other people, who were just born in the country or just had citizen parents , were not NBCs too. It said that about these other people that there had been doubts—-but a doubt is not a ruling. And then the Wong Kim Ark ruling came along and said that EVERY child born on USA soil is a Naturasl Born US Citizen except for the children of foreign diplomats and members of an invading enemy army. In any case, the Minor v. Happersett case certainly did NOT say that two citizen parents (or even one) is required in order to be a Natural Born US citizen.

        Like

  37. G says:

    If Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush were going head-to-head, Cruz’s birthplace would be reason for dismissal from the competition. Since he and all other GOP candidates are going against Trump, those details don’t matter because it’s all about taking down Trump. The GOP is interested in keeping all their pawns on the board at this time…

    Liked by 1 person

    • keebler AC says:

      Ted Cruz is a Globalist. His support for TPP and being responsible for fast-tracking loss of sovereignity to UN and international law under the guise of free-trade was treasonous. He wanted to speed up passing of TPP via simple majority. Very treacherous. Who needs Ivy league brains if they’re going to be clever on the other side of the equation. Cruz is not principled. He only uses it to win votes like handling clay in his hands. The reason why he promotes his own faith and other Conservative issues so strongly is just like Obama’s tactic of telling middle-class Americans that he is for them. The opposite was true. This is how politicians work. Ted Cruz’s conservative meme has become a farce particularly because he tries to push these aspects so farcically.

      Also, Ted Cruz’s colleagues reported that Ted would write emails and then stage them to be sent late at night to give the image that he was such a hard worker. Yup, this is a guy who would vote 98% Conservative just to give the illusion he’s pure Conservatism.

      Like

  38. Jalmodov says:

    The issue with Obama was that his mother was 16 years old when he was born. According to the law at the time, she was not eligible to confer citizenship on him. Unlike Cruz’s mother, who was an adult.

    Like

    • smrstrauss says:

      Re “16 years old.

      Answer: She actually was 18-years old. And, more importantly the fact is that the law you referred to applied ONLY to children born outside the USA, and Obama’s birth inside the USA, in Hawaii, has been shown OVERWHELMINGLY.

      Like

  39. Fordham Law Prof: Ted Cruz Not ‘Natural Born’ Under ‘Originalist’ View of Constitution http://tarheelteaparty.org/?p=19364

    Please, view the video and read the complete post before you comment.

    What’s a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ and why a U.S. President Must Be One, with KrisAnne Hall https://youtu.be/hAjznFRo5Vw

    Reason why Barrack Hussein Obama, II, was not eligible to be President and why Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are not eligible to run for the Presidency. By Fremont V Brown III

    Barack Hussein Obama II is not a Natural Born Citizen because his Father was born 1936 in the British Colony of Kenya and Protectorate of Kenya (1920-1963), and was thus born a subject of the British Crown. If as it appears, Barack Hussein Obama II was also born in the Colony of Kenya, then he too was born a subject of the British Crown. Even if he were born in Hawaii, he still would not be a natural born citizen, because his Father was not a US Citizen. So he is not eligible to be President of the United States.

    Rafael Eduardo “Ted” Cruz, was born in Calgary, Canada. Cruz’s father became a Canadian citizen during his residence in Canada. Once Cruz’s father returned to the US he renounced his Canadian citizenship.

    But, what is very important is that Ted’s Father became a naturalized US citizen in 2005 long AFTER Ted was born. It is not necessary that a person be born within the US to be a Natural Born Citizen. WHAT is necessary is that his parents must already be Citizens of the U.S. at the time he was born. Vattel understood that US citizens might be abroad in the service of their Country and their child might be born in the foreign land. Since children inherit, as a matter of natural right, the status of their parents, the Child is BORN a US citizen. That is why John McCain is an NBC. His father, already a US citizen, was stationed in the Panama Canal Zone. His Mother, already a US Citizen, was living with her husband. So their son, John, was BORN a Natural Born Citizen.

    Marco Rubio is not a Natural Born Citizen. Neither of his parents were U.S. citizens at the time of Rubio’s birth in 1971. His parents applied for U.S. citizenship and were naturalization in 1975, four years AFTER his birth.

    Location of birth is always irrelevant. All that matters is the citizenship status of the parents. Both parents must be U.S. citizens.

    Constitutional provisions:
    Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as president of the United States, under clause 5:

    No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

    The Twelfth Amendment states, “No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”

    Citizen by Birth or Naturalization is not the Same as a NATURAL BORN Citizen!

    Note: The Constitution can be “voided” ONLY if and when it is replaced by another Constitution. Acts do not trump the Constitution. This means the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.

    “The Naturalization Act of 1790 states quite clearly: a child born of a U.S.-born mother anywhere in the world is a U.S. citizen by birth and therefore a natural-born citizen,” Rafael Cruz said. – Washington Post, James Hohmann, August 31

    Here is the wording of the Naturalization Act of 1790 – Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.

    U.S. Supreme Court, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)

    “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.

    Note: The use of the word “CITIZENS” meaning both parents, not just one parent in the Naturalization Act of 1790 and U.S. Supreme Court, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874) in order to be a natural born citizen.

    Do you think that the reason that LIBERAL Academians that claim Ted Cruz is a Natural Born Citizen do not wish the public to be reminded that Obama’s birth parallels Cruz’s – that is only one parent was a U.S. Citizen? And He, Obama like Cruz is not a Natural Born Citizen.

    For more on Natural Born Citizen from Publius Huldah and others see http://tarheelteaparty.org/?page_id=5436

                                            _____________________________
    

    If it’s important to anyone that we get back to following the US Constitution after Obama’s shredding of it, this is a critical issue. Our Constitution requires that our President and Vice President be Natural Born citizens; not just citizens, not “naturalized” citizens and not “citizens at birth.” Cruz knows the difference but voters don’t so the ruse is on. Obama got away with it so why not Cruz. Below is the perfect example of why our founders demanded Natural Born status for these two elected offices – loyalty to the nation you represent, not some foreign country. Is Obama loyal to the US? Lesson learned!

    Is this guy eligible to be President? Like Ted Cruz, his mother is a US citizen! So, to quote Cruz: “My mother is a citizen therefore I am a citizen at birth and a natural born citizen.” With the Cruz definition, so is Prince Hamzan of Jordan. – – Jeanene Van Zandt

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s